From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 00:44:38 +0000 (GMT) From: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: page fault scalability patch V12 [0/7]: Overview and performance tests In-Reply-To: <20041210161835.5b0b0828.akpm@osdl.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: clameter@sgi.com, torvalds@osdl.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Andrew Morton wrote: > Hugh Dickins wrote: > > But why is do_anonymous_page adding anything to lru_cache_add_active, > > when its other callers leave it at that? What's special about the > > do_anonymous_page case? > > do_swap_page() is effectively doing the same as do_anonymous_page(). > do_wp_page() and do_no_page() appear to be errant. Demur. do_swap_page has to mark_page_accessed because the page from the swap cache is already on the LRU, and for who knows how long. The others (and count in fs/exec.c's install_arg_page) are dealing with a freshly allocated page they are putting onto the active LRU. My inclination would be simply to remove the mark_page_accessed from do_anonymous_page; but I have no numbers to back that hunch. Hugh -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org